A little different than the R-Calf "Convention"?

[Econ101]

Sandhusker, the consumer that is truly concerned will be buying branded, source verified beef. That is what some consumers want, not just generic country of origin. IF there is a real problem with product as you have mentioned, it should and will be addressed in negotiations, IMO. I have heard in the past that many foreign plants put most of ours to shame for cleanliness and care in processing, and the same for pharmaceuticals or chemicals used in producing their beef.

Your scenarios are points to consider, but no more likely to be a real source of problems than beef from Joe Blow who cheats on off-label use of pharmaceuticals that Sid Sixpack told him works better than the legal uses of proper uses. COOL has NO value in finding such problems among the miriad other problems that can occur in domestic beef. Do you realize that drugs legal in the USA are used in illegal ways and that can be very dangerous to consumers, too, if not found. COOL will do nothing to help trace such problems, actually preventing trace-back.

Leading consumers to believe COOL makes all beef perfectly safe is a dangerous and deceptive scam that will come back to haunt the industry if COOL is implemented and any food safety problem is tracked to that "labeled" beef, IMO.

MRJ

Leading consumers to believe USDA Inspected makes all beef perfectly safe is a dangerous and deceptive scam that will come back to haunt the industry if USDA Inspected is implemented and any food safety problem is tracked to that "labeled" beef, IMO.

Econ, it looks like you are trying to 'con' us again! The HACCP inspection system and the USDA inspectors and others involved are not infallible, however,
HACCP, using scientific testing and other modern methods IS superior to the old "look and smell" system of detecting problems with the meat supply.

COOl does NOTHING to improve beef safety, except lead consumers to THINK it does. The majority of imported beef, the POSSIBLY 5% in the retail meat case, is mostly from Canada, with a system commensurate with ours. COOL is all smoke and mirrors so far as beef safety is affected.

MRJ

And obviously our BSE surveillance is not trusted with our trading partners, USDA blue stamps are just rubber stamps for the industry, and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate these industries are at best incompetent and at worst, corrupt. I would say the Secretary of Agriculture hasn't followed the law and spent tons of money on his little pet projects the packers are pushing instead of doing his job.

I would say there is a con job going on here, MRJ, but it isn't me that is the one doing the conning.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I would say there is a con job going on here, MRJ, but it isn't me that is the one doing the conning."

Hahaha!

The irony of it all!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You have been told repeatedly that beef checkoff dollars can not be spent on political lobbying yet you continue on and on with your totally baseless bullsh*t about how your checkoff dollars are funding NCBA. IT'S TOTAL BULL! Not a stitch of truth to it. "

The money spent on lobbying does not have to come directly from the check-off coffers. All the internal divisions and subdivisions of committee's excuse doesn't cut it. When somebody reads a political message that has NCBA attached and then a checkoff article that has NCBA attached, there is no distinction made. A connection is made in the rational mind - it's all NCBA. Nobody else knows that one message came from this side and the other message came from that side, and they're not related.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't care about your damn "ILLUSIONS" of tying the political positions of NCBA to the checkoff dollars. Until you can prove misuse of checkoff funds by NCBA or anyone else, YOU GOT NOTHING. Another empty tree for you to bark up with your fellow blamers.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I don't care about your damn "ILLUSIONS" of tying the political positions of NCBA to the checkoff dollars. Until you can prove misuse of checkoff funds by NCBA or anyone else, YOU GOT NOTHING. Another empty tree for you to bark up with your fellow blamers.


~SH~

When the investigatory reports on the agencies that the NCBA'r s have political sway over keep coming out the way they do, SH, it is your delusions and not our "illusions".

What happens when someone calls you a fruit basket on line?

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't care about your damn "ILLUSIONS" of tying the political positions of NCBA to the checkoff dollars. Until you can prove misuse of checkoff funds by NCBA or anyone else, YOU GOT NOTHING. Another empty tree for you to bark up with your fellow blamers.


~SH~

It is an illusion of tying the checkoff to NCBA's lobbying? How can somebody supposedly interested in the truth not recognize a potential problem? You have to look very hard to find an article about work the checkoff has funded without seeing NCBA numberous times in the article. NCBA has seen to that, they are trying to tie themselves in with the good work the checkoff has done every chance they get. I can understand that. Of course, I am just providing another "ILLUSION" or "attempting to mislead". Check it out yourself.

Now, after seeing NCBA in every checkoff article, how is the average non-NCBA member supposed to know there is any seperation between the NCBA in the writeup and the NCBA lobbying for something? Wouldn't it be logical to assume the NCBA is simply the NCBA and everything coming from them is from the same source?

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, the consumer that is truly concerned will be buying branded, source verified beef. That is what some consumers want, not just generic country of origin. IF there is a real problem with product as you have mentioned, it should and will be addressed in negotiations, IMO. I have heard in the past that many foreign plants put most of ours to shame for cleanliness and care in processing, and the same for pharmaceuticals or chemicals used in producing their beef."

I certainly have not heard the same.

MRJ, "Your scenarios are points to consider, but no more likely to be a real source of problems than beef from Joe Blow who cheats on off-label use of pharmaceuticals that Sid Sixpack told him works better than the legal uses of proper uses. COOL has NO value in finding such problems among the miriad other problems that can occur in domestic beef. Do you realize that drugs legal in the USA are used in illegal ways and that can be very dangerous to consumers, too, if not found. COOL will do nothing to help trace such problems, actually preventing trace-back."

But where those drugs are illegal, it's harded to get them, substitutes are available, and legal recourse is an action. COOL isn't supposed to find problems in domestic product, we already have established avenues for that.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag,

Can you give me an example of misuse of checkoff dollars associated with an NCBA contract?

YES OR NO?

I don't care whether you have trouble with NCBA being associated with the checkoff, NCBA is involved in a lot of the good work the checkoff has done unlike the thumbsucking blaming outfit you support.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag,

Can you give me an example of misuse of checkoff dollars associated with an NCBA contract?

YES OR NO?

I don't care whether you have trouble with NCBA being associated with the checkoff, NCBA is involved in a lot of the good work the checkoff has done unlike the thumbsucking blaming outfit you support.


~SH~

Why do you ask me about an example of misuse? I've never made such an allegation.

I also didn't say the NCBA was not involved with any good work the checkoff has done. Since the lion's share of checkoff funds were handled by the NCBA, it only makes sense that if the checkoff did anything good, NCBA would probably be included. That's two strawmen of yours burned.

I'm simply saying that, unless you understand the political structures of the NCBA - which I'll bet most members themselves couldn't describe, there is no way to differentiate the checkoff NCBA with the lobbying NCBA. You must know that was true or you wouldn't of avoided the point with two strawman divertionary attempts.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I'm simply saying that, unless you understand the political structures of the NCBA - which I'll bet most members themselves couldn't describe, there is no way to differentiate the checkoff NCBA with the lobbying NCBA."

Add that to your list of many irrelevant points.

It doesn't matter whether someone thinks NCBA is funded by the beef checkoff, IT'S NOT AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. If checkoff blamers want to know the truth about how checkoff dollars can be spent, they can find out. If they believe checkoff dollars have been misused, they can take it up with the beef board. The world doesn't revolve around idiot conspiracy theorists who don't like NCBA because NCBA bases their political decisions on truth as opposed to a need to blame packers and imports.

The opinions of checkoff blamers like OT don't hold much weight with the majority of producers.

The recent poll shows 73% of the producers support the checkoff so any concern with NCBA affiliation has only added to the credibility of the checkoff.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "I'm simply saying that, unless you understand the political structures of the NCBA - which I'll bet most members themselves couldn't describe, there is no way to differentiate the checkoff NCBA with the lobbying NCBA."

Add that to your list of many irrelevant points.

It doesn't matter whether someone thinks NCBA is funded by the beef checkoff, IT'S NOT AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. If checkoff blamers want to know the truth about how checkoff dollars can be spent, they can find out. If they believe checkoff dollars have been misused, they can take it up with the beef board. The world doesn't revolve around idiot conspiracy theorists who don't like NCBA because NCBA bases their political decisions on truth as opposed to a need to blame packers and imports.

The opinions of checkoff blamers like OT don't hold much weight with the majority of producers.

The recent poll shows 73% of the producers support the checkoff so any concern with NCBA affiliation has only added to the credibility of the checkoff.


~SH~

It's not an irrevelant point. It's a point you don't want to addess, as evidenced by yet another strawman.

Regardless, I'm not going to wrestle with you any further. Rational people can read our exchanges and decide for themselves. I rest my case.

 

[Anonymous]

You're right, readers can decide for themselves how irrelevant your points are. The only point you have that is legitimate is the one under your hat.


~SH~

 

[mrj]

Sandbag,

Can you give me an example of misuse of checkoff dollars associated with an NCBA contract?

YES OR NO?

I don't care whether you have trouble with NCBA being associated with the checkoff, NCBA is involved in a lot of the good work the checkoff has done unlike the thumbsucking blaming outfit you support.


~SH~

Why do you ask me about an example of misuse? I've never made such an allegation.

I also didn't say the NCBA was not involved with any good work the checkoff has done. Since the lion's share of checkoff funds were handled by the NCBA, it only makes sense that if the checkoff did anything good, NCBA would probably be included. That's two strawmen of yours burned.

I'm simply saying that, unless you understand the political structures of the NCBA - which I'll bet most members themselves couldn't describe, there is no way to differentiate the checkoff NCBA with the lobbying NCBA. You must know that was true or you wouldn't of avoided the point with two strawman divertionary attempts.

Sandhusker, since you are accusing most NCBA members of not understanding the "political structures" of the group, would you please enlighten us?

You will need to do this for each division of NCBA because the Federation division is comprised of representatives many beef related organizations, including Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, various Beef Breeds organizations, Beef Improvement Federation, CattleWomen, SD Cattlemen and SD Cattlemen's Auxilliary, Livestock Marketing Assoc., SD Stockgrowers/R-CALF, and MORE just in SD. Across the nation, virtually every beef related group is represented in the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA!

I would think the "political structures" of that group will be more difficult to describe than will that of the Policy division of NCBA, comprised of direct members of that national organization, and members of the state affiliates of NCBA which may or may not necessarily be represented on the Federation division.

I hope you can do this soon, as I'm always eager to learn more about these organizations. Thanks.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

You're just making my point, MRJ. You have to be an insider to know all the divisions. How is somebody who is not aware of all the divisions and seperations going to know the differences? Isn't it logical to think the NCBA is the NCBA? How is anybody to know the checkoff NCBA is not the same as the lobbying NCBA?

 

[Tommy]

mj...Across the nation, virtually every beef related group is represented in the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA!


Does the Federation of State Beef Councils have anything other to do than to work on checkoff related things?

 

[mrj]

mj...Across the nation, virtually every beef related group is represented in the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA!


Does the Federation of State Beef Councils have anything other to do than to work on checkoff related things?

Tommy, I'm not sure how to interpret your question. The Federation of state Beef Councils being the national arm of those state organizations, I would say, obviously they only manage the state half of the beef checkoff dollars. They have that national arm to assure that the state efforts are coordinated to focus on the proper uses of the checkoff according to the law; to minimize if not prevent "re-invention of the wheel via that coordination, assuring that different states are not funding virtually identical projects, etc.

Is that the track you are on, or are you asking if the individual members have other jobs unrelated to the checkoff? In which case, the answer is yes, they are cattle producers, auction market owners, etc. ALL of them are volunteering their time serving the beef industry.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

You're just making my point, MRJ. You have to be an insider to know all the divisions. How is somebody who is not aware of all the divisions and seperations going to know the differences? Isn't it logical to think the NCBA is the NCBA? How is anybody to know the checkoff NCBA is not the same as the lobbying NCBA?

I will grant you that life would be simpler if the names had been different. I understand the point of keeping as few acronyms as possible, yet it may have served better if the design had been a triangle, with the three points being the membership, federation, and CBB groups, clearly visible as such. The coordination all pointing to the same end, a better cattle/beef industry would be the same, the financial separation would be the same, and the sharing of offices and staff would be the same to keep the most possible money going to the goal: increasing beef demand.

It is not as difficult as you paint it to learn the difference, though. Anyone can call their state organization, or email [email protected], or check the www.beefusa.org website and find someone to ask about the system.

The main point of the CBB and NCBA philosophies, IMO, is to focus the industry, from the farm or ranch gate through all the segments to the consumers' plate on the best beef product possible with honest returns to all segments for the value they put into that product.

CBB and NCBA representatives and members believe working to find solutions is more productive and will lead to more success for ranchers than searching for people or businesses or organizations to blame for any problems in the cattle/beef industry.

MRJ

MRJ

 

[Tommy]

mj...Tommy, I'm not sure how to interpret your question. The Federation of state Beef Councils being the national arm of those state organizations, I would say, obviously they only manage the state half of the beef checkoff dollars. They have that national arm to assure that the state efforts are coordinated to focus on the proper uses of the checkoff according to the law; to minimize if not prevent "re-invention of the wheel via that coordination, assuring that different states are not funding virtually identical projects, etc.

Is that the track you are on, or are you asking if the individual members have other jobs unrelated to the checkoff? In which case, the answer is yes, they are cattle producers, auction market owners, etc. ALL of them are volunteering their time serving the beef industry.

MRJ


I was not asking about individual members. My question pertained to the Federation of State Beef Council Division of the NCBA. You answered that they only manage the state half of the beef checkoff dollars. They have that national arm to assure that the state efforts are coordinated to focus on the proper uses of the checkoff according to the law.

What does it have to do with cattle industry issues other than the checkoff?

 

[CattleRMe]

Speaking as someone who has spent cattle dollars to join both r-calf, the national cattlemans association and the nebraska cattlemans association i'd like to say this joining all 3 of them made no difference to the dollars the calves brought sale day compared to my neighbors who weren't members at the same sale. When do members get to see the profits from the expense of membership? This concept it's doing good at Washington well i'm ready for it to do good in Nebraska.

 

[Sandhusker]

Speaking as someone who has spent cattle dollars to join both r-calf, the national cattlemans association and the nebraska cattlemans association i'd like to say this joining all 3 of them made no difference to the dollars the calves brought sale day compared to my neighbors who weren't members at the same sale. When do members get to see the profits from the expense of membership? This concept it's doing good at Washington well i'm ready for it to do good in Nebraska.

I think you need to decide on NCBA or R-CALF. Your membership dollars there are cancelling each other out.